3.1 Dermatoses Related to Cancer Treatment
Systemic administration of antineoplastic chemical agents has been a mainstay of cancer treatment for the past 50 years. But despite success against an ever greater number of cancers, systemic administration of these toxic agents is often attended by deleterious side-effects that limit their clinical usefulness. The anti-metabolite fluorinated pyrimidines, among the earliest-introduced of the chemotherapeutic agents, remain front-line treatment for a variety of cancers 40 years after their clinical introduction.
The prototype is 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), which is typically administered parenterally, either by bolus or continuous infusion. Oral administration of 5-FU is disfavored due to the high activity in the gut wall of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the rate-limiting enzyme in 5-FU catabolism. To bypass this problem, orally administrable fluoropyrimidine derivatives have been developed, either in the form of 5-FU precursors, or “prodrugs” (e.g., tegafur, Carmofur, capecitabine, and doxifluridine), or as coadministered combinations of prodrugs with DPD competitors or inhibitors (e.g., UFT, S-1, or Emitefur). Tegafur (FTORAFUR®) (1-(2-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-fluorouracil), is a congener of fluoruracil that introduces a tetrahydrofuran residue in place of the deoxyribose residue in the 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5′-FUDR) molecule. Carmofur, another orally administrable fluoropyrimidine prodrug, is 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil (also known as HCFU) Capecitabine (XELODA®, Roche Pharmaceuticals) is a rationally designed fluoropyrimidine carbamate prodrug of 5′-FUDR that can be given orally.
With reference to FIG. 1, tegafur, administered orally, is converted in the liver to 5-fluorouracil (“FU”) by action of cytochrome P450.
Capecitabine is converted to 5-FU in a multistep process. In the liver, a 60 kDa carboxyesterase hydrolyzes much of the compound to 5′-deoxy-5-fluorocyidine (5′-DFCR). Cytidine deaminase, an enzyme found in most tissues, including tumors, subsequently converts 5′-DFCR to 5′-deoxy-5-fluorourdine (5′-DFUR). The enzyme thymidine phosphorylase (TP) then hydrolyzes 5′-DFUR to the active drug 5-FU.
Within the cell, —FU can be converted to cytostatic (and/or cytotoxic) metabolites by any one or more of three main “anabolic” pathways, each catalyzed by a different enzyme. As labeled in FIG. 1, pathway involves the action of orotate phosphoribosyl transferase (OPRT), pathway 2 activates 5-FU via uridine phosphorylase (UP), and pathway 3 requires the enzyme thymidine phosphorylase (TP). These three pathways interconnect, converging on two principal mechanisms of cell toxicity.
In the first, circled and labeled “a” at the right of FIG. 1, 5-FU is ultimately metabolized to 5-FUTP, which is incorporated during transcription into RNA. Currently, it is thought that the toxicity results from the accumulation of fluorouracil residues in a wide variety of mRNAs coding for many different proteins, rather than from alteration of any single cellular function.
The second principal mechanism of cell toxicity results from anabolic activation of 5-FU to 5-FdUMP. As circled and labeled “b” in FIG. 1, 5-FdUMP forms a ternary complex with thymidine synthase (TS) and the cofactor 5,10-methylene tetrahydrofolate (CH.sub.2THF). Tight complexation sequesters TS, preventing the TS-mediated enzymatic formation of dTMP; this, in turn, decreases the synthesis, and thus availability, of thymidine triphosphate (dTTP), which is required for DNA replication and repair. Depletion of dTTP acts as a cytostatic brake on cell growth and division; more recently, it has been suggested that depletion of dTTP may directly trigger programmed cell death (apoptotic) pathways.
Catabolic inactivation of 5-FU is conceptually simpler than anabolic activation, with greater than 80% of an injected dose of 5-FU rapidly degraded by a single pathway, the first and rate-limiting step of which is catalyzed by dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) (also known, synonymously, as uracil reductase, dihydrouracil dehydrogenase, and as dihydrothymine dehydrogenase). The principal byproduct of catabolism, F-.beta.-alanine, is circled and labeled “c” in FIG. 1.
Given the complex interrelatedness of the metabolic pathways, the clinical efficacy of 5-FU and its orally-administrable prodrugs depends, to a first, crude, approximation on the relative activities of the DPD-mediated catabolic pathway and each of the three principal anabolic pathways. But despite intensive study, the extent to which any of these pathways predominates in human tumors is unknown and is likely to vary across tumor types and with different modes and doses of drug administration. Malet-Martino et al., The Oncologist 7:288 323 (2002); Ichikawa et al., Brit. J. Cancer 89:1486 1492 (2003).
The situation becomes more complex when considering the concurrent and interacting effects of multiple, competing, substrates on the multiple and competing catabolic and anabolic enzymes in the fluoropyrimidine pathway. Further complexity is added by variation in the activity of these enzymes among a genetically diverse human population, with plasma levels of 5-FU varying by about three orders of magnitude among humans exposed to the same dose of 5-FU.
UFT is a combination of uracil and ftorafur in a 4:1 molar ratio. UFT is approved for clinical use in Europe and Japan; it has been denied FDA approval for clinical marketing in the United States.
After oral ingestion, the ftorafur component of UFT is metabolized by P450 to 5-FU. The uracil component is intended to compete with 5-FU for degradation by DPD; present at a several-fold molar excess over ftorafur in the administered composition, and thus intended to be present at a several-fold molar excess over ftorafur (and thus 5-FU) in tissues, uracil is intended to outcompete 5-FU for reaction with DPD, inhibiting DPD catabolic inactivation of 5-FU. The intended result is a higher circulating level of 5-FU, leading to greater 5-FU-mediated cytotoxicity. Cao et al., Clinical Cancer Res., 1:839 845 (1995).
But the actual in vivo concentrations of uracil and 5-FU after UFT administration do not invariably follow the intended ratio. Administration of UFT to rats results in a greater than 1000-fold variation in uracil level within various organs, and can lead to up to a 100-fold excess of uracil over 5-FU in some tissues. (Kawaguchi et al., Gann. 71(6):889 99. (1980)).
Furthermore, uracil can also compete with 5-FU for reaction with the three principal anabolic activating enzymes. In order for the UFT combination to show greater clinical efficacy than ftorafur alone, uracil must not outcompete 5-FU for activation by at least one of OPRT, TP, and UP in the tumor. The outcome thus depends upon the relative amount of each of the four principal rate-limiting enzymes in each of the cells and tissues taking up 5-FU, and on the relative affinity of each of the enzymes for uracil and 5-FU. The latter depends, in turn, at least in part on cellular pH: OPRT, for example, favors 5-FU over uracil by about 50 times at neutral pH.
Variation in the relative amounts of each of the four principal rate-limiting enzymes among tissues and tumors makes a priori prediction of UFT efficacy in any particular tumor unreliable. And experiments in laboratory animals provide little help: the relative affinities of these enzymes for 5-FU and for uracil differ substantially among different animal species, and particularly among different animal tumors.
Sludden et al. report, for example, that liver DPD activity is highly variable within and among tested species. Sludden et al., Pharmacology 56:276 280 (1998). At least one study reports that 5-fluorouracil is a better substrate for human dihydrouracil dehydrogenase (DPD) than is uracil, Naguib et al., Cancer Research, 45:5405 5412 (1985).
And a complex as the physiology of fluoropyrimidine metabolism may be with respect to desired antitumor effects, the pathophysiology of fluoropyrimidine side-effects is even less well understood.
Among these poorly understood side effects of fluoropyrimidine administration, the physiology of hand-foot syndrome (“HFS,” “palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia,” “PPES”) is perhaps the most obscure.
HFS usually starts with numbness, tingling, redness, and painless swelling of the hands and/or feet. Grade 1 HFS is characterized by any of numbness, dysesthesia/parasthesia, tingling, and/or painless swelling or erythema of the distal extremities. Grade 2 is defined as painful erythema of the hands and/or feet and/or discomfort affecting the patients activities of daily living. Grade 3 HFS is defined as moist desquamation, ulceration, and blistering or severe pain of the hands and/or feet and/or severe discomfort that causes the patient to be unable to work or perform activities of daily living.
HFS is progressive with dose and duration of exposure to fluoropyrimidines. The FDA-approved XELODA® product insert reports a 54% 67% incidence of HFS irrespective of grade during treatment with capecitabine at the FDA-approved dose, with a grade 3 incidence of 11 17%. HFS is also seen in treatment with other chemotherapeutic agents, including antimetabolites such as cytarabine, and agents of other classes, such as docetaxel and doxorubicin, including pegylated liposomal forms of doxorubicin (CAELYX®).
The pathophysiology of hand-foot syndrome is as yet unknown and variously ascribed to metabolites of 5-FU, local drug accumulation, increased levels of anabolic enzymes in the affected tissues, and various other factors. See, for example, Childress and Lokich, Amer. J. Clinical Oncology 26:4356 (1994); Elasmar et al., Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 31:172 174 (2001); and Fischel et al., “Experimental arguments for a better understanding of hand-foot syndrome under capecitabine,” Proc. Amer. Ass'n Cancer Res. 45:487 (abstract #2119) (March 2004).
In the face of such mechanistic uncertainty, the current standard of practice is to cease or attenuate the dose of fluoropyrimidine when hand-foot syndrome develops. Unfortunately, the severity of hand-foot syndrome appears to correlate with tumor response, Chua et al., “Efficacy of capecitabine monotherapy in patients with recurrent and metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy,” Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 22:511 (abstr. 2055) (2003); dose attenuation to reduce the symptoms of hand-foot syndrome thus also reduces efficacy of rumor treatment.
Topical treatment with DMSO, which has also been proposed, see U.S. Pat. No. 6,060,083, is not typically practiced in the clinic and is of uncertain efficacy.
While hand-foot syndrome is common during capecitabine treatment, it is rarely seen with the ftorafur-containing prodrug combinations UFT and S-1. S-1 lacks uracil yet, like UFT, causes hand-foot syndrome only rarely. The reason for the disparate prevalence is unknown, with the etiology of hand-foot syndrome with S-1 administration suggested to differ from that seen with capecitabine and/or 5-FU. Elasmar et al., Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 31:172 174 (2001).
Systemically-administered chemotherapeutic agents other than fluoropyrimidine antimetabolites also cause side effects in various organs and tissues that are not involved in the disease being treated. Many of these agents interact with, and are metabolized by, complex metabolic pathways.
There is thus a need in the art for compositions and methods for preventing and/or treating side effects of systemically administered chemotherapeutic agents.
There is a further need in the art for methods and compositions for preventing and/or treating side effects of systemically administered chemotherapeutic agents that neither abrogate nor attenuate the therapeutic effect of the systemically administered agent, thus permitting such chemotherapeutic agents to be used at therapeutic dosage levels.
There is a particular need for methods and compositions for preventing and/or treating hand-foot syndrome, including methods and compositions that would obviate the withdrawal or attenuation of the dose of systemically administered chemotherapeutic agent, thus permitting systemically administered chemotherapeutic agents, such as fluoropyrimidines, to be administered at therapeutic dosage levels.
3.2. Dermatoses
While the skin is widely regarded as an ideal barrier to protect an organism, it is also an organ in its own right and susceptible to disease and infection. Skin cancers, skin disease and skin inflammation, aside from being affected by the side effects of chemotherapy, are disruptive, if not deadly, to the organism. Furthermore, disease or inflammation of the skin can further exacerbate the dermatological side effects caused by chemotherapeutics.
Dermatoses are diseases of the skin, including cancers, viruses, bacteria, and inflammatory diseases. Dermatoses may be hereditary or brought about by contact with allergens, molds, or pollen. Dermatoses may further be caused or exacerbated by stress and fatigue. Dermatoses may be the result of deficiencies in vitamin A or result from other diseases such as diabetes. Dermatoses may include, but are not limited to, atopic dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, radiation-induced dermatitis, dry skin dermatitis, papulopustular rashes, xerosis, pruritis, actinic keratosis, phototoxic dermatitis, genital warts, herpes, superficial basal cell carcinoma, eczema, psoriasis, acne, tinea and ulcers.
Given the scope of underlying causes of dermatoses, most current treatments are directed to the underlying cause, such as the particular virus or bacterium. Most current treatments for dermatoses, therefore, rely on systemic administration of an agent, such as an anti-biotic or anti-viral, to treat the condition. Accordingly, current therapies rely on an accurate diagnosis in order to effectively treat the dermatosis. Furthermore, as is known in the art, disease can adapt to a treatment to resist the efficacy of the agent. For example bacteria and viruses can mutate to develop resistance to a drug. Cancers also can adapt and become inert to the effects of chemotherapeutic agents.
The use of topical agents to treat dermatoses is desirable as it places an agent at the site it is most needed without being overly invasive or suffering from systemic limitations, such as the first-pass effect with the liver. However, most topical treatments are aimed at alleviating certain symptoms and not at treating or preventing the cause of the dermatosis. Moreover, some treatments, especially ones available generally may exacerbate a particular dermatosis, especially if the dermatosis is caused by or exacerbated by a substance or allergen the subject has been exposed to.
Thus a need is felt for an effective topical agent capable of treating or preventing dermatoses that does not require an acute diagnosis. Accordingly, a single agent capable of alleviating and treating various dermatoses, regardless of the underlying cause, would be of great benefit.
The present invention provides protectant agents including uracil or a metabolite thereof that effectively prevent and/or treat the cutaneous toxicities and dermatological side-effects associated with chemotherapeutic agents. Additionally, and surprisingly, the protectant agents including uracil or a metabolite thereof provide compositions and methods for treating or preventing various dermatoses.